I have every confidence that they’ll have Brega sewn up before too much longer - I have a family member there at the moment and the prognosis is looking optimistic…
fingers crossed
There’s two parts to Brega. The large industrial complex, and the small residential. Apparently, some of the reports are referring to different parts of it. I think the residential was solidly captured, and the industrial is being mopped up now.
That’s plausible – I think we know which part Gaddafi would have made it the first priority to hold.
Hmmm… I wonder.
As some of you may know, one of the Western nations that has rabidly supported the war of aggression against Libya from its very inception has been Norway:
Meanwhile, Colonel Gaddafi has, from the very beginning of the war, threatened to employ self-defensive measures against the European nations involved in the war of aggression:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110708
Today, a major bombing has shaken Oslo, capital of Norway, in an unprecedented attack against the nation. No one knows who to blame yet:
What do you think? Could there be a connection here? Seems to me that, if these issues are in fact connected, then this development would mark a major reversal in the illegal war. If Libya has indeed struck back, then it is possible that we’re seeing the evening of the playing field.
Couldn’t be Norway’s fault. Gaddafi is a sworn enemy of Israel and – hadn’t you heard?! – Norway is antisemitic!
Conceivable, though it’s worth pointing out that murdering a bunch of children from the ruling party is so clearly an act of terrorism it would be almost amusing to see you try to defend it. I suspect not; the bombing of government buildings, sure, but the two attacks are probably related, and even Qaddafi’s not dumb enough to think shooting up a youth camp is a good idea.
ETA: as more news is coming out about the Norway attacks, the youth camp thing just keeps getting more horrific. Let’s hope the reports are overstated.
You can’t level the playing field that way. As the Taliban learned.
Terrorist acts are always an admission of weakness anyway. A faction that can’t win its goals on the battlefield or at the ballot box sometimes resorts to terrorism – the purpose of which is to inflate its perceived power far beyond its real power. (The Symbionese Liberation Army terrorized/terrified the West Coast for years and it never had more than a dozen members.) But that’s all it’s good for – terrorism never scratches an enemy’s offensive capability.
I assume you mean Al Qaeda, not the Taliban?
Weren’t they working together at the time?
Rebels claim to have capture key Gaddafi general.
Same story says Gaddafi has had the Brega oil facilities booby-trapped with explosives to keep the rebels from using them.
No. Or at least, not on the international terrorism front.
Terrorism… Sure, that’s one way of looking at it. On the other hand, Norway has been involved in a campaign of aggression that has destroyed Libyan government buildings and slaughtered innocent Libyan children. Something tells me that you will wave this away as non-terrorism, for only non-Westerners can be terrorists. Am I right?
Dumb? Half of Christendom is trying to murder the man, in case you haven’t noticed. What exactly does he have to lose by striking back? Would it be “smarter” to meekly wait for death without doing anything to hit the aggressors where it hurts?
Not a very good example, my friend. The Taliban has proven to be a highly successful partisan organization that is on the verge of liberating Afghanistan from several of the most powerful armies in the world.
That’s a naive position, and a naive example. “Terrorism” exists for a very simple reason: it works, and it’s relatively cheap. Look at the Empire, which is on the brink of economic collapse largely due to the course of action that it selected after 9/11. Look at the 2004 Madrid bombings, and how that magically convinced the Spanish invaders to leave Iraq in a hurry.
I agree with you that terrorism is not a positive force in our world. However, let us not delude ourselves by pretending that it changes nothing. No, my friend, it changes everything, and it is shaping the very world around us.
Well, that was fast. And amusing.
Actually, I suppose I should give you a quick response (although I doubt that line deserves it). Yes, children get killed in conflicts. Yes, that’s a bad thing. Nonetheless, children would get killed in the conflict if the West didn’t intervene (potentially more). Further, killing the commander in chief of a country’s military during hostilities is not “murder”, even if you don’t think the conflict is just in the first place. However, less controversially, “striking back [at an enemy]” by shooting a bunch of children isn’t striking back at an enemy at all; it’s striking at a bunch of unrelated innocents. There’s a reason targeting children in particular (and noncombatants in general) is illegal in wartime.
Of course, all of this is completely irrelevant, since the murderer at the youth camp is apparently Norwegian. Still, I guess it puts you on record one more time supporting child murder.
ETA: actually, I forgot to mention, but there are not (yet) any confirmed cases of Libyan children killed by Western bombs.
And on record grossly inflating what the Gaddafi regime can do.
I’d imagine it’s easier to shoot a dozen children than to blow up an airliner, and Qaddafi has probably done the latter, but yes, that’s a fair point.
There was a time he could have arranged it. That time is now gone forever.
Probably true, yes. The assets he needs to pay people for such things are more or less all frozen, I’d assume.
ETA: actually, that’s a pretty encouraging thought, isn’t it. 
And other political changes. I remember in Patriot Games how the ultra-radical IRA offshoot trains in Libya, because that’s where all terrorists train. Maybe in 1992, but during the GWOT, Gaddafi was cowed out of any involvement he may have had in all that (so far as anyone knows); so, now, when he might think to have a use for them, he’s got no network of terrorist allies to call on. And even if he could call on them – it’s a lot harder to be a terrorist now anyway. Blame Osama, asshole overdid it and screwed things up for everybody. 
A fair point. Although, caveat: things have only really gotten bad for Muslim terrorists. I don’t think, for example, there was any additional pressure on the Tamil Tigers, other than of the domestic losing-the-war variety, between 2001 and 2008. For that matter, I don’t think Irish terrorism isn’t looked down on much more than it was prior to 2001. Wasn’t there that American senator this year calling for investigations of Muslim terrorism to cover his own connections to the IRA?